WILLIAM ROBERT PREVETTE, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE MARIE DEPALMA, AND STEPHEN DEPALMA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant appeals an order denying attorney's fees under settlement offers made to plaintiffs in a personal injury action. The trial court found the offers ambiguous and requiring a general release, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the plain language of the offers contained no such requirement and that courts cannot infer unstated conditions into unambiguous settlement offers.
The court reversed and held that the settlement offers were not ambiguous and did not implicitly require a general release. A settlement offer must explicitly state any requirement for a general release; courts cannot infer such unstated requirements into otherwise plain and unambiguous offers of settlement.
[1] An offer of settlement is not rendered ambiguous by the absence of an express requirement for a general release.
[2] Courts should not infer unstated requirements, such as a general release, into otherwise clear and unambiguous offers of settlement.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Unlike the offer in Swartsel v. Publix Super Markets Inc., 882 So.2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), these offers contained no requirement of a general release. Nor can such a requirement be reasonably read into the actual text of these offers.”
Establishes the court's holding that no general release requirement can be inferred from the plain language of the settlement offers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant made two identical settlement offers to plaintiffs in a personal injury case. Each offer proposed a specific dollar amount in settlement…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Offer Of Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, C.J.
The defendant in a personal injury action appeals an order denying a motion for attorney’s fees, to which he claims entitlement under two offers of settlement he made to plaintiffs. The trial court found the offers ambiguous. We reverse.
The two offers were identical in form and content except for the names of the offerees and the amounts. Omitting only formal and immaterial parts, they said:
“The Defendant hereby proposes to offer _ $ to the Plaintiff _ in settlement of Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant in Case No.: 01-11445 AB.
“Each party shall bear their own costs and attorneys fees resulting from litigation in this matter. “This proposal is intended to terminate all claims, disputes, and obviate the need for further intervention of judicial process.”
The court explained that the above text:
“is equivalent to the requirement of a general release and would require the Plaintiffs to give up claims or rights they would not have otherwise lost in the litigation.”
We disagree.
Unlike the offer in Swartsel v. Pub-lix Super Markets Inc., 882 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), these offers contained no requirement of a general release. Nor can such a requirement be reasonably read into the actual text of these offers. There simply is no expression "of any desire for a general release, so there is no occasion to worry about what other claims or rights might be covered by the terms of such a release. In fact, it would be a rare (if indeed there are any) offer in which we would infer an unstated requirement of a general release. If an. offer is to include the requirement of a release, general or otherwise, it will have to say so explicitly. Generally, it is not for judges to infer additional requirements into otherwise plain and unambiguous offers of settlement. See BMW of N. Am. Inc. v. Krath en, 471 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (when text of offer of settlement is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot indulge in construction or interpretation of its plain meaning; when contract is silent as to particular matter, courts should not under guise of construction impose on parties contractual rights and duties which they omitted).
Reversed.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- BMW OF N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Swartsel v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 882 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)